Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 4606 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 6933 Goods vs 3038 No Goods

1. Economist
   71bf
   

   Typically, yes. We code things up independently and then verify that our results match. I tend to do this especially with early student/new co-authors since we are more likely to disagree on choices we make. Over time (across multiple projects) as I gain trust (and I do not trust easily) I agree that I do not go over the code with a fine tooth comb, but I always go through the modeling choices, the data cleaning process and run the final code to obtain results. Without this I am not sure how I put my name on the paper if I don't even know what is going on...

   >> Senior faculty here. If your name is on the paper you are responsible for the content. End of story.
   Absolutely.

   Yes but do YOU run the code? You’re putting your name on the line, absolutely, but you trust your juniors not to be fabricating data.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

2. Economist
   71bf
   

   You have now.
   

   I have never met a senior who does more than a cursory code check.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   71bf
   

   And before you think that I am some special breed I know that many of the senior co-authors I have tend to do similar things. Are there others who adopt a different approach sure but it does not absolve them of responsibility. You put your name on the paper you are responsible for what it says. No ifs, ands or buts.

   >> Senior faculty here. If your name is on the paper you are responsible for the content. End of story.
   Absolutely.

   Yes but do YOU run the code? You’re putting your name on the line, absolutely, but you trust your juniors not to be fabricating data.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

4. Economist
   707a
   

   Typically, yes. We code things up independently and then verify that our results match. I tend to do this especially with early student/new co-authors since we are more likely to disagree on choices we make. Over time (across multiple projects) as I gain trust (and I do not trust easily) I agree that I do not go over the code with a fine tooth comb, but I always go through the modeling choices, the data cleaning process and run the final code to obtain results. Without this I am not sure how I put my name on the paper if I don't even know what is going on...

   >> Senior faculty here. If your name is on the paper you are responsible for the content. End of story.
   Absolutely.

   Yes but do YOU run the code? You’re putting your name on the line, absolutely, but you trust your juniors not to be fabricating data.
   

   To put it very bluntly, seniors typically aren’t tooled up enough to verify the code

   3 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   707a
   

   Also when we start talking behavioral, and seniors evaluating random effects models, I think a lot of them are capable of reaching way back and remembering Winer, but I’m not sure how many of them can translate that to lmer, let alone mister P (TBF haven’t seen much of that in marketing). 99% of the time it doesn’t matter, really… but there’s a lot of “I’ll take your word for it”

   3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   707a
   

   Finally I agree that we should verify data cleaning code of our coauthors- and everyone should really write well commented, production level data cleaning code that all our coauthors can and should check. I’d hope at a minimum that people with students- seniors and juniors alike- do that. But I’ve seen too much spaghetti code to think that’s happening (even in replication packages! My management science one is a horrible mess)

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   71bf
   

   You have a point. I would prefer that they not put their names on things they don't know how to do. I especially think we should not be putting our names on students job market papers. It's our job to advise, help and even guide them not to take credit for their work. But the point is this - if you put your name on the paper and are ok with taking the credit for it then you are also responsible for any downstream negative consequences that might show up.

   To put it very bluntly, seniors typically aren’t tooled up enough to verify the code

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

8. Economist
   1627
   

   There is a difference between collaborating and giving advice. In the latter case a person should not expect co authorship. But in the latter case, I also doubt very much any junior would truly be able to publish a paper for the first several years. So give credit where it's due. It is always easier for a senior to collaborate with a peer and to pay an RA for the clerical stuff than to waste time mentoring a doctoral student.

   You have a point. I would prefer that they not put their names on things they don't know how to do. I especially think we should not be putting our names on students job market papers. It's our job to advise, help and even guide them not to take credit for their work. But the point is this - if you put your name on the paper and are ok with taking the credit for it then you are also responsible for any downstream negative consequences that might show up.

   To put it very bluntly, seniors typically aren’t tooled up enough to verify the code
   

   3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   71bf
   

   Not sure what you mean by "I also doubt very much any junior would truly be able to publish a paper for the first several years." Advisors can offer inputs and give guidance that helps students and juniors publish without needing their names on their paper. Also, the slew of single authored papers from students from Chicago, Stanford and literally all of Economics seem to suggest that people can publish without the need of a senior co-author. I think in our field the reverse is true - senior faculty who have checked out rely on students to publish and piggy back on their effort. So I am giving credit where credit is due.

   There is a difference between collaborating and giving advice. In the latter case a person should not expect co authorship. But in the latter case, I also doubt very much any junior would truly be able to publish a paper for the first several years. So give credit where it's due. It is always easier for a senior to collaborate with a peer and to pay an RA for the clerical stuff than to waste time mentoring a doctoral student.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    dfbb
    

    Amazing that this thread exists and JB and AL are new JCP editors!

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

11. Economist
    83e6
    

    Such a joke. Done goes JCP.

    Amazing that this thread exists and JB and AL are new JCP editors!

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

12. Economist
    be67
    

    If I were editor at JCR, most R&Rs would be simply AE and reviewers pick the most important study/finding, authors share the survey for that study and get 1 try to replicate it, if it replicates, the paper is accepted. It would solve so many problems, speed everything up, incentivize submitting replicable studies in the initial submission, etc. Otherwise authors will try the key new study that AE/authors request 10 times if needed until it works and only report the one that worked. So nothing in JCR replicates, papers have too many studies and moderators that would never replicate, etc.

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    3ffd
    

    Well, why people like DA continue to be powerful, RH working on scarcity can become JMR editor, and PW become the dean of Wharton. This is the reality in this field.

    Such a joke. Done goes JCP.

    Amazing that this thread exists and JB and AL are new JCP editors!
    

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    3b3c
    

    Well, why people like DA continue to be powerful, RH working on scarcity can become JMR editor, and PW become the dean of Wharton. This is the reality in this field.

    Such a joke. Done goes JCP.

    Amazing that this thread exists and JB and AL are new JCP editors!
    

    RH is not even known for scarcity research. What a joke field CB has become.

    3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    2853
    

    https://twitter.com/AaronCharlton/status/1635672648113094661

    do yall know who AC is talking about? marketing is such a circus lmao

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    8be9
    

    https://twitter.com/AaronCharlton/status/1635672648113094661
    do yall know who AC is talking about? marketing is such a circus lmao

    Gotta be American KW

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    227d
    

    why do you say that? who would be the senior authors that worked with him? why would he be the anomalist

    https://twitter.com/AaronCharlton/status/1635672648113094661
    do yall know who AC is talking about? marketing is such a circus lmao

    Gotta be American KW

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    227d
    

    Won't anyone just ask for it?

    Benjamin Neuwirth
    @benrawk
    ·
    Mar 14
    Replying to
    @AaronCharlton

    @RetractionWatch
    and 2 others
    Links to articles?
    Aaron Charlton ⚪
    @AaronCharlton
    ·
    Mar 14
    Replying to
    @benrawk

    @RetractionWatch
    and 2 others
    I can't post them publicly. I'll DM you

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    2271
    

    pretty serious stuff if the accused is American KW.

    the aussie editor has two papers co-authored with KW. (one with JL)

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    ff80
    

    pretty serious stuff if the accused is American KW.
    the aussie editor has two papers co-authored with KW. (one with JL)

    I’m really curious now

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »